Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
Efficacy of In-Office Bleaching Using 35% Hydrogen Peroxide in an Attachable Syringe Varying the Application Tip: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Centenaro Gabrielle Gomes, Barbosa Laryssa Mylenna Madruga, Condolo Leticia, Cappelletti Marina Kravchychyn, Loguercio Alessandro D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This randomized clinical trial evaluated the bleaching efficacy (BE), absolute risk and intensity of tooth sensitivity (TS), gingival irritation (GI), and esthetic self-perception (ES) of an in-office bleaching gel with an attachable syringe using different application tips in a randomized, double-blind (participant- and evaluator-blinded) clinical trial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five participants received hemi-arch bleaching using an attached brush and a conventional tip, performed in two sessions with hydrogen peroxide 35%. BE was evaluated at baseline, weekly, and 1-month post-bleaching using a spectrophotometer (ΔEab, ΔE00, and ΔWID) and shade guide units (ΔSGU). The absolute risk and intensity of TS and GI using a VAS. ES was assessed using the Orofacial Esthetic Scale. BE was analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA. TS and GI were evaluated using the McNemar test (absolute risk) or paired t-test (intensity and ES scores; α = 0.05).
RESULTS: BE was observed for both groups, with no statistical difference (p > 0.05) across all parameters. The absolute and intensity of TS were comparable between brush and conventional tip (p > 0.05). ES was improved after bleaching (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The application tips showed equivalent bleaching efficacy and esthetic self-perception, as well as similar tooth sensitivity and gingival irritation.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The brush applicator tip preserved bleaching efficacy while minimizing the volume of gel applied to the tooth surface, making it a more sustainable alternative.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five participants received hemi-arch bleaching using an attached brush and a conventional tip, performed in two sessions with hydrogen peroxide 35%. BE was evaluated at baseline, weekly, and 1-month post-bleaching using a spectrophotometer (ΔEab, ΔE00, and ΔWID) and shade guide units (ΔSGU). The absolute risk and intensity of TS and GI using a VAS. ES was assessed using the Orofacial Esthetic Scale. BE was analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA. TS and GI were evaluated using the McNemar test (absolute risk) or paired t-test (intensity and ES scores; α = 0.05).
RESULTS: BE was observed for both groups, with no statistical difference (p > 0.05) across all parameters. The absolute and intensity of TS were comparable between brush and conventional tip (p > 0.05). ES was improved after bleaching (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The application tips showed equivalent bleaching efficacy and esthetic self-perception, as well as similar tooth sensitivity and gingival irritation.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The brush applicator tip preserved bleaching efficacy while minimizing the volume of gel applied to the tooth surface, making it a more sustainable alternative.